| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | [2012] NZERA Auckland 359 |
| Determination date | 12 October 2012 |
| Member | K J Anderson |
| Representation | H White ; S Turner, B Heenan |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | NZ Dairy Workers Union Te Runanga Wai U Inc v Fonterra Brands (NZ) Ltd |
| Summary | DISPUTE – Interpretation of parties’ collective employment agreement (“CEA”) - Parties disputed interpretation of CEA if respondent implemented roster change – Authority found affected employees obliged to follow process where roster change implemented and consider redeployment as part of process – Found on consideration of all relevant terms of CEA affected employees obliged to consider redeployment to alternative position before redundancy available option - Question answered in favour of respondent - Control Room Operators |
| Abstract | Applicant’s members employed as control room operators. Parties disputed interpretation of collective employment agreement (“CEA”) if respondent implemented roster change. Parties agreed would trial change to employee roster. Proposed roster involved a change to hours and days of work. Affected employees consulted after trial completed and respondent requested employees either confirm would move to new roster or chose redeployment under CEA terms. Some affected employees declined to accept roster changes and respondent claimed those employees could now be redeployed to new role. Applicant claimed employees did not have to accept redeployment and could elect to be made redundant pursuant to CEA. Applicant claimed CEA clause relating to redeployment only applied if employees first agreed to roster change. Respondent claimed parties must first try to confirm new roster and explore redeployment and, only if parties could not agree to roster change or redeployment, could redundancy then be considered. Respondent claimed intention of CEA that redundancy was last resort.;AUTHORITY FOUND –;DISPUTE: Affected employees obliged to follow process where roster change implemented and consider redeployment as part of process. Overall context of CEA showed applicant’s interpretation of CEA could not be sustained. On consideration of all relevant terms of CEA affected employees obliged to consider redeployment to alternative position before redundancy became option. Authority recommended parties revisit drafting of relevant CEA clauses. Question answered in favour of respondent. |
| Result | Question answered in favour of respondent ; Costs reserved |
| Main Category | Dispute |
| Cases Cited | Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc: Aste Te Hau Takitini O Aotearoa v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [2002] 1 ERNZ 491;New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Inc v Air New Zealand Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 88;New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005;Silver Fern Farms Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trade Unions Inc [2010] ERNZ 317;Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Energy Limited [2012] 2 NZLR 444 |
| Number of Pages | 8 |
| PDF File Link: | 2012_NZERA_Auckland_359.pdf [pdf 172 KB] |